More bad news for Vernon: Guest Post by Guy Page

Vermont Yankee
Vernon Dam in foreground
(picture from back when VY was operating)

The loss of Vermont Yankee’s 1000-plus jobs and millions of dollars of tax revenue has been followed by more discouraging energy-related financial news for Vernon and other Connecticut River towns.

When Vermont Yankee closed in December, 2014, “glass half full” people could at least point to the Vernon Dam’s $400,000 in annual tax payments and the hope that another power plant might be built near the Vermont Yankee site to take advantage of the new, nearby switchyard.

Now, the town has almost certainly lost the “bird in the bush” proposed power plant. And the “bird in the hand” Vernon dam may be wrenched from its grasp by the State of Vermont.

Last week's surprise announcement that the Kinder-Morgan natural gas pipeline would not be built has forced the shelving of plans for a natural gas-fired power plant near the Vermont Yankee site in Vernon. The KM line would have brought large new quantities of natural gas from Pennsylvania to Massachusetts and New Hampshire. But developers cited insufficient demand.

The pipeline cancellation may lead to more interest in power from north of the border. That's good news for the Clean Link power line proposed to run from Quebec beneath Lake Champlain, and then across Vermont to the Vernon switchyard. A similar power line from New York across Lake Champlain is also in the works. Furthermore Hydro Quebec recently announced a major marketing initiative for New England customers.

For Vernon, of course, the decision is a tough blow for backers who hoped the town could recoup some of the jobs and taxes lost when VY closed.

Furthermore, the proposed state purchase of 13 TransCanada Corp. dams on the Connecticut and Deerfield rivers includes the Vernon dam. The proposal, now under preliminary review led by a high-level “working group” appointed by Gov. Peter Shumlin, could lead to the dam becoming state property and therefore property-tax exempt. The state could offer Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), which typically offers about 10 cents on the dollar, one Vernon official said.

A State of Vermont purchase of the TC Hydro dams, totally 567 megawatts and reportedly valued at about $800 million, is very far from a “done deal.” If the dams are instead sold to another corporation, Vernon and other revenue-challenged towns with Connecticut River TransCanada hydro assets can still keep collecting taxes.

 -------

Guy Page is the Communications Director for Vermont Energy Partnership, and a frequent guest blogger at this blog.

A Court Case with a Deadline: The Black Start Diesels

Breaking News: 

Last night, the hearing officer for the diesel docket at the Public Service Board recommended granting a certificate to allow the diesels to be installed.  This is great news!  However, as Entergy notes in its response, the PSB has not yet ruled on this recommendation, so the situation remains uncertain.  Andrew Stein article at Vermont Digger includes a link to the hearing officer statement.

---------------
A Court Case with a Deadline

On June 4, in federal court in Brattleboro, there will be a hearing on Entergy's suit against Vermont's Public Service Board.  While many court cases drag on forever, this one is likely to be resolved quickly.  Entergy needs an answer from the court by mid-June.

Vermont Yankee needs a diesel generator.  The plant must begin pouring the concrete pad for it in mid-June.

Background

Vermont Yankee and Vernon Dam

In the summer of 2012, the New England System operator (ISO-NE) changed its black-start power plant requirements.  "Black Start" power plants are plants that can start quickly and re-energize the grid during a wide-spread outage. Until last summer, hydro plants were the black-start plants, but hydro plants tend to be small (Vernon Dam is 34 MW).  Gas-fired plants can also start quickly, and gas-fired plants tend to be bigger.  It would require fewer gas-fired plants to re-energize the grid.  Therefore, last summer,  ISO-NE said that small hydro plants such as Vernon Dam would no longer be black-start facilities.  That role would be assigned to larger gas-fired plants.

Vermont Yankee has a direct tie-line to Vernon Dam, and had always counted Vernon Dam as a source of emergency back-up power. When Vernon Dam was re-classified and would no longer be a black-start facility, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission required Vermont Yankee to replace it with another emergency diesel generator.

Supposedly, in Vermont, adding a diesel generator at a nuclear power plant requires a ruling from the Public Service Board.   That's the current Vermont requirement, and Entergy tried to comply.  In early August, Entergy announced it would ask the PSB for permission to add a diesel generator.  The Brattleboro Reformer reported on the request on August 7 (Entergy to ask for new diesel generator at VY), and I blogged about it on August 13 (Black Start, Black Out and Diesels, Some Clarity).

Trying to Shut the Plant Down

As soon as Entergy said it needed a new diesel generator,  intervenors got ready to try to stop them from acquiring one.  As Ray Shadis of NEC said in the Reformer article: "the state even today regulates certain aspects of existing emergency generators -- such as exhaust emissions, petroleum leaks and noise."  He clearly hoped that this diesel generator, a required piece of nuclear plant safety equipment, would be stopped on the basis that diesel generators are..well, they are diesels.

(sarcasm alert) We don't need no stinkin' diesels in Vermont. (end alert)

The Public Service Board Refuses to Act

Vermont Yankee began the process of asking for a new generator last August.  In general, such simple requests to the Public Service Board do not require complicated dockets, but are decided in two or three months. This type of request does not require not the same type of docket as a utility merger might require.  However, the PSB made it pretty clear that they were going to make this decision into a major issue. After months of hesitating, on December 27, they opened the investigation into the diesel with a PSB order that included these words:

As a preliminary matter, the Hearing Officer may request parties to examine the question of whether (i) the Board can and should grant permission for Entergy VY to install the generator when Entergy VY is not in compliance with existing Orders and CPGs and has not demonstrated that it is willing to comply with orders of this Board 

Orders and Implied Orders

The "orders of this Board" clause is not about something small.  It's huge. The question is whether Entergy has a right to keep operating Vermont Yankee after March 2012, when its original certificate of public good expired. In general, by Vermont law, plants can keep operating with an expired certificate, as long as they had applied for a new certificate in a timely fashion (as Entergy did).  But Senate votes and federal court cases (among other things) have muddied the waters on the certificate extension, at least in the opinion of the PSB.

I have not actually found any order from the PSB requiring the plant to shut down.  It seems to be more of an order-implied-by-the-question  that is quoted above. If someone can find such an actual PSB order, I hope they will tell me.  The last two years of PSB orders can be found on this page:  Recent Public Service Board Orders.

The PSB did issue an order recently, however.  On April 24, the Public Service Board entered a Scheduling Order on the docket, re-iterating that it wanted answers to the questions  from the December 27 order.  To put the matter rather mildly, with this statement, the PSB gave Entergy absolutely no assurance of a timely decision.

Entergy Sues

On April 25, Entergy sued the Public Service Board in federal court, claiming the Board has no authority over safety equipment at a nuclear power plant.  It seems clear to me (and apparently, equally clear to Entergy) that the Public Service Board is willfully interfering with the purchase of  nuclear safety equipment. The Board is pre-empting and frustrating the federal role of ensuring safety at nuclear plants.  Andrew Stein at Vermont Digger has a good short article on the lawsuit. I have the Entergy complaint (document that outlined their suit) on federal-filings-page of the Energy Education Project website.

As the Entergy complaint notes, on page 25:   Vermont's refusal to authorize construction of the station blackout generator....is an aspect of the state's long-running campaign to force the VY Station to shut down by any means necessary because of radiological safety concerns....[Vermont] has no genuine, non-pre-empted state interest in preventing construction of the blackout generator.

A June 4 date has been set for the hearing.


Even Nuclear Opponents Wonder about the PSB's Choices

Pat Parentau

Pat Parentau is no friend of Vermont Yankee.  He is a professor at Vermont Law School and an advisor to the Vermont legislature on methods for shutting down the plant.  However, even Parentau appears puzzled by the Board's actions.  A recent article by John Dillon at VPR quoted Parentau:

Vermont Law School Professor Pat Parenteau said the suit puts state regulators in a difficult situation.

“The point is you have a federal law that mandates something to be done and the state seems to be frustrating that,” he said. “And that’s just not the position you want to be in.”...

“Once again, I’m concerned about how the state interacts with the federal court in this matter,” he said. “If they have a real basis to say, ‘no, we’re not going to let you do this.’ Then, okay, what is that basis? But they don’t seem to have that. Why didn’t the state just do something that would avoid this? I don’t know.”


The court date is coming soon.  It will be interesting to see how the state defends their position on the diesel generator.  I personally don't think they can defend it. "They don't seem to have that [a real basis for their statement]" as Parentau said.  So true, indeed.

The state is making arbitrary decisions on nuclear safety, and now they will be in court again.  However, every time a case is heard in court, it is a gamble.  I am not a lawyer. I  think the state does NOT have a good case, but I certainly don't think it is a slam-dunk that one side or the other will win.

I think Entergy is in the right on this, and I certainly hope for a good outcome in court.

-------

Note: You can link directly to the Entergy filing complaint filing pdf here.  It includes a timeline, including Entergy warning the PSB of the date that it would sue them, if the PSB didn't move.  The pdf is a longish document and will take time to download.

I have another document, also, about Vernon Dam.   I asked an  Entergy spokesman if VY had tried to pay Vernon Dam to continue to be available as a black-start facility.  In return, he sent me this filing that Entergy made to the Public Service Board on April 12.  Entergy had asked Vernon Dam (TransCanada) that question and been refused.  TransCanada was willing to be black-start if required by ISO-NE, but did not want to take on the liability of being contractually bound with a nuclear power plant.

All filings to the PSB are public documents, but this one does not appear on the PSB website.  I thank Entergy for sharing it with me.  Mark Potkin's testimony on negotiations with TransCanada--a relatively short pdf.

Black Start, Intervention, plus some links

Vermont Yankee
 Vernon Dam in the foreground

Vernon Dam and the Diesel Generator, Again

ISO-NE recently reclassified Vernon Dam.  The dam is no longer a Black Start facility, that is, it is not one of power plants charged with re-energizing the grid after an extensive power outage.  Because of this reclassification, Vermont Yankee may (or may not) have to obtain a new diesel generator, and may (or may not) need a Certificate of Public Good (CPG) for the generator.   You can read my post about the Vernon Dam reclassification at: Black Start, BlackOut, and Diesels: Some Clarity

In all this uncertainty, two things are certain:

• Vermont Yankee applied for a Certificate of Public Good for the diesels
• One of the old-line intervenors, New England Coalition against Nuclear Pollution, took this as an opportunity to intervene, and was granted intervenor's status.

A recent article by Bob Audette in the Brattleboro Reformer describes this latest intervention Board Grants NEC's Request to Intervene in VY Diesel Case.  The article quotes the Public Service Board hearing officer, Lars Bang-Jensen, as follows:

Bang-Jensen noted that the PSB hasn't even concluded whether it "can or should" grant a CPG for the diesel generator "on any schedule." The diesel generator application is being processed on the assumption that it will not become effective unless the extended operation CPG is approved, he wrote.

And so, in Vermont, with the help of intervenors, a simple request for safety equipment becomes a complex issue.

----------

Some links worth following:

Carnival: The 148th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at Hiroshima Syndrome. Leslie Corrice has done a great job on this post.  I don't think there is anywhere else on the web where you can find so comprehensive a collection of pro-nuclear retrospectives on Fukushima.  (The Carnival covers other topics, including Vermont Yankee, but the Fukushima coverage is spectacular.)


Podcast: Rod Adams has been hosting Atomic Show podcasts for years.  More than seven years, as a matter of fact, and this week he hosted a spectacular podcast, Atomic Show #200, with atomic communicators and experts on three continents (Australia, Europe and North America).  Congratulations to Rod for his unceasing and effective efforts in favor of nuclear energy.  Enjoy the podcast!

The River and the Rhetoric--Who Speaks for the River

Protests On the Water

Connecticut River.  View from near my house.
My river runs through it.  It's not just their river.

The Sage Alliance is planning an anti-Vermont Yankee flotilla tomorrow on the Connecticut River.  The title of their rally is Our River Runs Through It: Flotilla and Rally to Stop VT Yankee Pollution   The opponents continue to assert, in word and action, that Vermont Yankee thermal pollution is killing the fish in the Connecticut River.

As a matter of fact, Arnie Gundersen has stated that there are only sixteen shad left in the Connecticut River.  My blog post about this statement: Hot Climate and Cold Fish: Gundersen's Debate Misstatements received over thirty comments.  Most of the comments told me that Gundersen was right and who was I to say that he was wrong?

Let's start with "Who am I to say Gundersen is wrong?" Well, I live a hop and skip from the river, which is more than Gundersen can say. More particularly, let's look at the people who claim to care about the Connecticut River.

Graphic from Watershed Council website

The Connecticut River Watershed Council

David Deen, a Vermont Legislator and river guide, is River Steward for the Upper Valley of the Connecticut River Watershed Council.  Deen will be one of the key speakers at the anti-Vermont Yankee flotilla.  The Connecticut River Watershed Council paid for reports that claim that Vermont Yankee is "baking" the wildlife.  A report issued in August received much media attention. This article in the Brattleboro Reformer describes Deen going to Entergy offices with cookies, and trying to hand them the report.

Interestingly, only one media outlet, WCAX, included this quote from Deen about the report: "We are not saying that Entergy is in violation of their permit. But what we are saying is that the formula that the permit is based on, ANR is not collecting a critical piece of data," said David Deen of the Connecticut River Watershed Council.

I thank Adam Sullivan and WCAX for putting the Watershed Council's cookie-baking in context.  Entergy is not in violation of their permit.  The Watershed people just don't like the permit.

Who is the Connecticut River Watershed Council?

When I first heard of the Watershed Council, I thought it was a consortium of government entities that are affected by Connecticut River watershed issues. After all, watersheds cross county lines, township lines, state lines.  A council of government agencies is usually required to manage a watershed properly.  The title of this organization would lead a person toward that conclusion.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  This is an advocacy organization, like the Sierra Club or VPIRG.  Its name is as clever as VPIRG's name: Vermont Public Interest Research Group.  How many headlines have I read saying "Research Group says VY should close" (or words to that effect).  The "research group" was VPIRG, of course.  Naming an organization well can be a great advantage.

I should have guessed the Watershed Council was an advocacy group.  Deen is a River Steward with the group. Most government programs have "chairpersons" or "planning specialists."  They don't have River Stewards.  That's a title from Merry Olde England,  or maybe from Tolkien.

The Connecticut River Joint Commissions

Map of the Connecticut
From the Connecticut River Joint Commissions

In contrast, there is an official body concerned with Connecticut River watershed issues.  The Connecticut River Joint Commissions consists of legislative advisory bodies concerned with the Connecticut River. The Joint Commissions were set up by the New Hampshire and Vermont legislatures.  Fifty three Towns (in Vermont and New Hampshire) border on the Connecticut.

River management is divided into Local Committees, each responsible for understanding and advising on a section of the river. The selectmen of each town appoint up to two members of the Local Committee.  It is truly a citizen's advisory body, and does a great deal of planning.  For example, the Water Resources Management Plan provides significant guidance for many topics along the river.

The Connecticut River Join Commission holds meetings and work weekends.  It advises on permitting, boat safety, and non-point-source discharge concerns.



Who Speaks for the River?

The Watershed Council claims to speak for the Connecticut River. To some extent, it may.  It has paid staff, but it is also a volunteer group, and volunteer groups are important.  However, in this case, the group has become self-important, constantly attacking Vermont Yankee.  For example, the group claims that that the thermal plume from Vermont Yankee can be detected fifty miles downstream to Holyoke, Massachusetts. Considering that the river flows through Vernon Dam and is diverted to the Northfield Pumped Storage plant before getting to Holyoke, a thermal plume visible that far downstream is improbable, to say the least.

 The Watershed people paid for a study that claimed the plume was visible and the delta-T (temperature change) remained in the river fifty miles downstream. I find this study unconvincing, as it mixes critiques of computer models, dye-tests in the river, and measurements. It seems to claim the only thing that could be heating anything downriver is...the thermal plume from Vermont Yankee.  I admit, however, that I am not a hydrologist.

To me, the study looks like a mish-mash with an agenda. The only thing the study considers is the thermal plume from Vermont Yankee.  Any temperature change is because of the thermal plume from Vermont Yankee.  Pumped storage...not mentioned.  Evaporative cooling from the river...not mentioned. Sunny days, rainy days...not mentioned. Mt. Tom coal-fired plant upriver of Holyoke...not mentioned.  Vermont Yankee controls all. Or at least, it controls the entire hypothesis.  No alternate explanations need apply.

On the basis of this work, the group now acts as if it is a fact that thermal plumes can survive dams, pumping stations, pumped storage reservoirs, and fifty miles of river.  This is advocacy gone mad, in my opinion.

The Commission Speaks For Most of Us

In my opinion, the Watershed Council  group and its Stewards have their own agenda, which seems to have very little to do with what happens on the  Connecticut River.  On the other hand, the Connecticut River Joint Commissions are made up of local people who do not hold archaic titles. These people are far more likely to speak for the river, in my opinion.

And they speak for me.  After all, it's my river, too.

Black Start, BlackOut and Diesels: Some Clarity

Vermont Yankee and Vernon Dam

This picture of Vermont Yankee shows the plant and Vernon Dam.  Vernon Dam has always been one of Vermont Yankee's potential sources of back-up power, along with the plant's own diesels, batteries and so forth.

Recently, the grid operator decided that, starting next year, Vernon Dam will no longer be "maintained as a black start unit." Due to that change, Vermont Yankee will have to ask the Public Service Board for permission (Certificate of Public Good) to buy a new diesel generator and pour a concrete slab to hold it.

Reading this material, it's hard to understand what is going on.  Does the plant need a new diesel generator for safety in blackout conditions? Is "blackout" the same as "black start"?

Intevenors Ready for Action

Whatever it means, the usual-suspect intervenors are getting set to intervene.  According to this article by Bob Audette in the Brattleboro Reformer, Ray Shadis of NEC has already offered his opinion, which includes the idea that "the state even today regulates certain aspects of existing emergency generators -- such as exhaust emissions, petroleum leaks and noise," he said.  Other groups are also considering intervening in the diesel placement.

Three Shades of Black

Blackout and blackstart are different. Grid blackout refers to the grid going down, and black start is about bringing the grid up again.  Confusingly, "station blackout" (not the same as grid  blackout) means that the grid is down AND the station's emergency diesels don't operate.  In other words, there are three shades of black: grid blackout, station blackout, and black start.

To avoid station blackout, all nuclear plants have other backup sources of power, all of which have to approved by the NRC.  At the end of the year, apparently, Vernon Dam will no longer be a black start plant, so the NRC will no longer approve it as a backup power source against Vermont Yankee station blackout.

Blackout 

All three "black" conditions start the same way: the grid goes down.  Power isn't flowing. The nuclear plant has a loss of offsite power. At that point, however the three terms diverge: blackout, station blackout, and black start  are different.

Nuclear plants have lost offsite power many times.  This is grid blackout. When this happens, the reactors scram automatically, because where are they going to send their energy?  No grid, no place to receive the  power.  At that point, the emergency diesels begin operating and cool the reactor.  This has happened many times all over the country.  That is grid blackout, and the plant takes care of itself.

It is important to note that the emergency diesels are not running the plant, and they are not sized to run the plant.  Operating the plant at full capacity takes a lot of power for pumps and so forth, and the plant uses grid or its own power for that work.  The emergency diesels are sized to keep the plant's core cool while the plant is off-line and generating only residual heat.  Vermont Yankee has two qualified emergency diesels, and it  also has a hard-wired connection to Vernon Dam, which has acted as a back-up source of emergency power.

If, for some reason, the plant diesels didn't start, the current next step would be Vernon Dam providing power.  Vernon Dam would prevent "station blackout."

However, the grid operator decided that Vernon Dam will lose its qualification as a Black Start station in the future. Vernon Dam will not be one of the "Black Start" stations that re-energizes the grid. Based on this grid operator decision on the future of Vernon Dam, the NRC decided Vernon Dam could not be a "station blackout" resource for Vermont Yankee in the future. (Note, Vernon Dam is still a qualified Black Start station right now..this is all about planning for the future.)

Black Start

Black Start refers to the grid.  When the grid is down, plants have to be brought on line to restart it.  There's an entire sequence of events to energize a grid, and I am beyond my depth to describe it all.  However, I do know that hydro plants have generally been  the "black start" plants.  It takes very little power to start a hydro plant (opening gates rather than starting big pumps) and then the hydro plant supplies power to the grid.  Next, other plants use the hydro power to start their pumps.  Eventually, the whole grid is re-energized.  The workers at Comerford Hydro plant first explained this to me when we visited the hydro plants on Energy Safari last year.  Wikipedia also has a good article on black start.

One of the reasons I like the picture of Vermont Yankee and Vernon Dam at the top of this post is to show the differences in power output. Vernon Dam, like all renewable sources, tends to be land-hungry.  The dam floods a large territory, and makes only 34 MW  of power.  Vermont Yankee makes 620 MW.

Small is Not Beautiful

The small size of Vernon Dam has become a problem to the ISO grid operator, Recently ISO-NE managers have decided that big plants, not small hydro plants, will become the black start plants.   As the Brattleboro Reformer article states: The current (ISO-NE) plan calls for smaller generators, such as the Vernon Hydro Dam, to go online first. The new plan calls for the biggest generators to startup first.

"Vermont Yankee currently credits the Vernon Hydro Dam as its NRC-required Station Blackout AC power source because the dam is a Blackstart facility," said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "After the end of the year, the Vernon Hydro Dam will no longer be maintained as a Blackstart facility."

Apparently, when the grid operator decided that Vernon Dam will lose its Black Start qualification, the NRC decided that Vernon Dam was not going to be maintained well enough to be a source of backup power for Vermont Yankee  With the loss of Vernon Dam as a qualifying back-up, the plant will have to buy another diesel generator.  Vermont Yankee will keep its connection to Vernon Dam.  However, that connection will not "count" in the NRC assessment of plant safety.

Why The Change

Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
Schematic from InfoPix

According to the Wikipedia article and the Brattleboro Reformer article, ISO-NE has been revising its black start procedures and incentives.   I didn't quite understand why ISO has made this change: hydro plants are traditional black start plants, and Vernon Dam hydro was recently refurbished and upgraded.  I called ISO-NE and Lacey Ryan was kind enough to answer my questions and send me a link  to ISO-NE's position paper on the "Black Start" change.

Basically, with small hydro plants as "Black Start", ISO predicts it will take many hours for the grid to be re-energized.  However, with more large natural gas plants on the grid, using these plants as Black Start plants will bring the grid up sooner.  Natural gas plants can come up to power very quickly, with limited auxiliary equipment.  This is why they are back-ups for wind turbines, and why ISO is designating them as Black Start plants on the New England grid. Much of the information about this choice is on pages 6 to 9 of the ISO document. Starting the grid will be "top down" in the future, with big plants coming on-line first, rather than bottom-up, with small plants first.

Note that plants that raise steam (like nuclear plants) cannot be "black start" plants. It takes time to raise steam.  Combined cycle gas turbines must run open cycle when they operate in black start mode: they can't raise steam either. (Information from ISO document.)

What Does It Mean?

Plant opponents will somehow claim that this shows Vermont Yankee wasn't safe and shouldn't be operated until it gets a new diesel.  That is not the case.  The Vernon Dam plant will be re-classified by ISO-NE, but nothing else has changed. Due to the re-classification, the NRC will also reclassify it and require a new diesel for Vermont Yankee in the future. The NRC's rule is a typical forward-looking safety requirement for the nuclear industry. Things change, and the NRC stays on top of the changes.

However, any time new equipment is required or a new hearing must be held, plant opponents become energized and active.  That's pretty much the only thing wrong with this story.

Acknowledgements

A huge thank you to Howard Shaffer for reading and correcting an earlier version of this draft, and to Lacey Ryan of ISO-NE for her help.  Grid operation is not my strongest knowledge base, and I welcome further comments and corrections from my readers.